nanog mailing list archives
Re: value of co-location
From: Fletcher Kittredge <fkittred () biddeford com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 07:49:13 -0500
On Sun, 21 Jan 1996 15:28:43 -0800 (PST) Hans-Werner Braun wrote:
This all is probably true if the objective is to provide the best possible IP service. If you apply other requirements, like integration of the current telephony system, or, more accurately, evolve the telephony system, in the telephony company mindset, to something that also supports data, video, and things like that, things look different. Then again, so far I see little activity in the context of service integration. More ATM as a level-2 replacement for data networking. Which brings us back to your comments, as in such an environment the benefit is more marginal (e.g., ATM may still have multiple service qualities before it is being implemented in an IP(+) substrate). Oh well. If there were just concerted goals.
Telephony system, Telephony system... Oh yeah, I remember! That was that system they had back in the twentieth century for carrying primitive voice communications. I even think they used to run data across it in the days before the cable companies dominated. later, fletcher
Current thread:
- Re: value of co-location, (continued)
- Re: value of co-location Nathan Stratton (Jan 20)
- Re: value of co-location Kent W. England (Jan 20)
- Re: value of co-location Hans-Werner Braun (Jan 20)
- Re: value of co-location Mike O'Dell (Jan 21)
- Re: value of co-location Joseph Lawrence (Jan 22)
- Re: value of co-location Bilal Chinoy (Jan 22)
- Re: value of co-location Stephen Stuart (Jan 22)
- Re: value of co-location Dennis Ferguson (Jan 21)
- Re: value of co-location Hans-Werner Braun (Jan 21)
- Re: value of co-location Dennis Ferguson (Jan 21)
- Re: value of co-location Fletcher Kittredge (Jan 22)
- Re: value of co-location Paul A Vixie (Jan 21)
- Re: value of co-location Paul A Vixie (Jan 22)
- Re: value of co-location Alan Hannan (Jan 22)
- Re: value of co-location mike (Jan 22)